Linking Challenge and Hindrance Stressors to Employees’ Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes through Work Engagement

(1)

Linking Challenge and Hindrance Stressors to

Employees’ Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes

through Work Engagement

Olusegun Adekunle Olugbade

Submitted to the

Institute of Graduate Studies and Research

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Tourism Management

Eastern Mediterranean University

July 2016

(2)

Approval of the Institute of Graduate Studies and Research

Prof. Dr. Cem Tanova Acting Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Tourism Management.

Prof. Dr. Hasan Kıcı Dean, Faculty of Tourism

We certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Tourism Management.

Prof. Dr. Osman M. Karatepe Supervisor

Examining Committee 1. Prof. Dr. Turgay Avcı

2. Prof. Dr. Celil Çakıcı

(3)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to develop and test a research model that examines the interrelationships of challenge and hindrance stressors, work engagement, quitting intentions, service recovery and job performances as well as creative performance. Broadly speaking, this model aims to test: (1) the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on work engagement, quitting intentions, service recovery performance, job performance, and creative performance; (2) the impact of work engagement on quitting intentions, service recovery performance, job performance, and creative performance; and (3) the mediating role of work engagement in the aforementioned relationships. Data were collected from customer-contact employees and their immediate supervisors in the international four- and five-star chain hotels in Nigeria.

The results demonstrate that both challenge and hindrance stressors trigger quitting intentions. Work engagement alleviates quitting intentions, while it fosters service recovery, job and creative performances. However, the signs of effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on work engagement are not consistent with our expectations. Therefore, there are unexpected findings about the mediating role of work engagement. Management implications as well as future research implications are also given in light of the study findings.

(4)

ÖZ

Bu çalışmanın amacı, iş hayatında stres yaratan birtakım faktörler, işe angaje olma ve önemli sonuç değişkenleri arasındaki ilişkiyi inceleyen bir araştırma modelini geliştirip test etmektir. Daha açık bir ifadeyle, bu model: (1) stres yaratan faktörlerin işe angaje olma, işten ayrılma niyeti, iş performansı, hizmet iyileştirme performansı ve yaratıcı performans üzerindeki etkilerini; (2) işe angaje olmanın işten ayrılma niyeti, iş performansı, hizmet iyileştirme performansı ve yaratıcı performans üzerindeki etkilerini; ve (3) işe angaje olmanın yukarıda belirtilen ilişkilerdeki aracı rolünü test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada kullanılan veriler, Nijerya’da uluslararası dört ve beş yıldızlı otellerdeki sınır birim işgörenleri ve onların bağlı oldukları yöneticilerden toplanmıştır.

Çalışmanın bulguları, stres yaratan faktörlerin işten ayrılma niyetini tetiklediğini ortaya koymuştur. İşe angaje olma, işten ayrılma niyetini düşürürken, iş performansı, hizmet iyileştirme performansı ile yaratıcı performansı artırmıştır. Beklenenin aksine, stres yaratan faktörlerin işe angaje olma üzerinde farklı etkileri bulunmuştur. Bu durumda, işe angaje olma değişkeninin aracı rolüne ilişkin farklı bulgulara ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları ışığında, yönetsel belirlemeler ile gelecek çalışmalara yönelik önerilere de yer verilmiştir.

(5)

DEDICATION

Dedicated to… The Almighty God

The giver of life The king of glory The king of kings The beginning and the end The creator of heaven and earth

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First, I thank the Almighty God for his infinite mercy throughout my doctoral program at EMU. Without his grace, this program would not have been completed. All glory to you oh Lord.

I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Osman M. Karatepe for his supervision, advice, and support right from the very first day I informed him of my intentions to be supervised by him. His ideas, passion, experiences, and encouragement have given me the extraordinary courage, skills, and inspiration needed to complete this program. I am Indebted to him more than he knows.

My sincere gratitude to Asst. Prof. Dr. Mine Haktanir for her valuable advice and constant encouragement at all times. Her readiness to help in every possible way made her a tremendous personality. Thank you. I also appreciate all the jury members for their time, support, suggestions, and contributions. Thank you all.

It is my pleasure to thank all the past and current staff of the Institute of Graduate Studies and Research for their kindness and support. My experience working there has truly contributed to my success.

(7)

for your support, you are a great individual. Many thanks to Tunde Fatoki, Tope Olumorin, Akeem Oladapo, Olumide Ayedun, and all the Research Assistants within the Faculty of Tourism.

Finally, many thanks to my sister and her husband Mr. and Mrs. Sunday Yetunde Kayode for their prayers, support, and inspiration. The lord will continue to promote and honor you. Many thanks to my brothers and their wives Kole and Abiola Olugbade, Ayo and Muge Olugbade, Olusegun Abe. You guys are wonderful and I am truly grateful, without you all things would have been very difficult. Thank you for your readiness at all times.

(8)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Selected Research on the Challenge ̶ Hindrance Stressor Framework ... 29

Table 2: Demographic Profile Results ... 64

Table 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results ... 66

Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Observed Variables ... 69

Table 5: Results of Model Comparisons ... 70

(12)

LIST OF FIGURES

(13)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

α Alpha Coefficient

AMOS Analysis of Moment Structures ASV Average Shared Variance AVE Average Variance Extracted CCEs Costumer-Contact Employees CFI Comparative Fit Index

CMIN Minimum Discrepancy CR Composite Reliability

DF Degree of Freedom

JD-R Job Demand-Resources MSV Maximum Shared Variance PNFI Parsimony-Normed Fit Index

(14)

Chapter 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The introduction chapter enables the reader to have an overall understanding of the research philosophy, purpose and contribution of the empirical investigation, sample and procedure, measurement, and strategy of data analysis. Therefore, this section explains the reason for the use of deductive approach, presents the purpose of the study and discusses its potential contribution to extant research with the relevant theoretical underpinnings, and delineates information about the methodology adopted in the empirical investigation. The participants and procedure and measurement as well as strategy of data analysis are discussed in the methodology part. The introduction chapter concludes with information about the content of the whole dissertation.

1.1 Research Philosophy

1.1.1 Stressors, Work Engagement, and Job Outcomes

(15)

all stressors are likely to have negative effects on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes at work (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; Crawford et al., 2010; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005).

Cavanaugh et al. (2000) have argued that work stress is differentially related in opposite directions (positively and negatively) to attitudinal and behavioral job outcomes depending on how the stressors are interpreted by individuals. They posit that challenge-related self-reported stress will relate to positive outcomes, while hindrance-related self-reported stress will relate to negative outcomes. Examples of challenge stressors include work overload, time pressures, and high levels of job responsibility and have been defined as stressful work circumstances that produce positive feelings (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Employees tend to see such stressors as motivating factors to achievement. Hindrance stressors are defined as undesirable work circumstances that interfere with employees’ ability to achieve valued goals. Examples of hindrance stressors include role stress, organizational politics, red tape, and concerns about job security (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Consistent with this notion, LePine et al.’s (2005) examination of distinct relationships between the two types of stressors found that challenge stressors increased motivation and performance, while hindrance stressors decreased motivation and performance.

(16)

Vigorous employees are the ones with high levels of energy, mentally ready and able to invest effort to work in any circumstances; dedicated employees are the ones who are inspired by their work and have a significant sense of pursuit; and absorbed employees are the ones who are fully concentrated on their work (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Research has shown that engaged employees exhibit desirable outcomes (e.g., low levels of quitting intentions, good job performance, organizational commitment) (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Karatepe, 2013a; Karatepe et al., 2014; Lee & Ok, 2016; Menguc, Auh, Fisher, & Haddad, 2013). In fact, these findings are also supported by Halbesleben’s (2010) meta-analytic investigation. He has indicated that work engagement is significantly correlated with organizational commitment (ρ = 0.38), job performance (ρ = 0.36), health (ρ = 0.20), and quitting intentions (ρ = -0.26).

1.1.2 Deductive Approach

(17)

1.2 Theoretical Rationale

1.2.1 The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model

The JD-R model proposes that job demands and job resources which are differentially associated with various outcomes can be used to categorize working conditions (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Job demands are defined as “… those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs…” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Such demands, among others, include role ambiguity, role conflict, emotional demands, and work pressure. On the other hand, job resources refer to “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may do any of the following (a) functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, and (c) stimulate personal growth, learning and development” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Job resources, among others, consist of work social support and high-performance human resource practices or high-performance work practices (e.g., autonomy, rewards).

(18)

Schaufeli, 2008). This is called ‘the motivational process of the JD-R model’. The JD-R model also assumes that job resources act as buffers between job demands and strain (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Karatepe, 2011). That is, the detrimental effects of job demands on strain or burnout are weaker among employees who have elevated levels of job resources. This is called ‘the buffering role of job resources in the JD-R model’. In the JD-R model, it is also proposed that personal resources link job resources to work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). This is called ‘the role of personal resources in the JD-R model’.

Although a number of studies do not find any significant association between job demands and work engagement or do not seek an association between job demands and work engagement, Halbesleben’s (2010) meta-analytic study presents positive correlations between job demands and work engagement. Specifically, he has reported that work-family conflict (ρ = 0.43), family-work conflict (ρ = 0.25), and work overload (ρ = 0.19) depict positive correlations with work engagement. It appears that these findings are not trivial and job demands are significantly related to work engagement, as also reported in recent studies (Karatepe, 2013a; Karatepe et al., 2014).

1.2.2 Transactional Theory of Stress

(19)

future goals. Such stressors, among others, include role conflict, organizational politics, hassles, red tape, job insecurity, and role ambiguity (e.g., Crawford et al., 2010; LePine et al., 2005; Rodell & Judge, 2009).

How employee’s appraisal of challenge and hindrance stressors varies depending on individual characteristics. They differentiate these demands as either challenge or hindrance based on their experiences on the level of work-related demands (Crawford et al., 2010). Through the appraisal outcomes, employees can perceive stress as a positive influence that triggers positive emotions and encourage changes. Similarly, stress can also be perceived as a negative influence that triggers negative emotions leading to undesirable attitudes and behaviors (Crawford et al., 2010; Hon et al., 2013).

(20)

1.3 Purpose and Contribution of the Study

1.3.1 Purpose

Drawing from the transactional theory of stress, this study develops and proposes a conceptual model that examines work engagement as a mediator between challenge and hindrance stressors and critical employee outcomes. Specifically, this study tests: (1) the influences of both challenge and hindrance stressors on work engagement and quitting intentions; (2) the effect of work engagement on the abovementioned job outcomes; and (3) the mediating role of work engagement in these relationships.

Service recovery performance is defined as “… frontline service employees’ perceptions of their own abilities and actions to resolve a service failure to the satisfaction of the customer” (Babakus, Yavas, Karatepe, & Avci, 2003, p. 274), while job performance is defined as “the level of productivity of an individual employee, relative to his or her peers, on several job-related behaviors and outcomes” (Babin & Boles, 1998, p. 82). Quitting intentions refer to CCEs’ tendency to quit or leave the organization (Singh, Verbeke, & Rhoads, 1996), while creative performance refers to new and novel ideas as well as feedback provided by CCEs for improving service delivery process (Karatepe & Vatankhah, 2014; Wang & Netemeyer, 2004). Data collected from hotel CCEs two weeks apart in three waves and their immediate supervisors in Nigeria are utilized to gauge each of the relationships proposed in this study.

1.3.2 Contribution to Current Knowledge

(21)

nature of their job, CCEs are beset with stressful demands that deplete their energy (Babakus et al., 2003; Karatepe et al., 2014). However, employees are likely to have different perceptions about various stressors they are beset with. Some employees perceive that challenge stressors provide the opportunity for learning and growth, while some of them perceive that hindrance stressors thwart their learning and growth (Crawford et al., 2010). Some employees can also perceive challenge and hindrance stressors as stressful demands that impede their learning and growth (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013).

(22)

Second, Podsakoff, LePine, and LePine’s (2007) study has reported that challenge stressors increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment and reduce turnover. Their study has also shown that hindrance stressors mitigate job satisfaction and organizational commitment and heighten turnover. Although there is evidence about the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on performance and motivation (LePine et al., 2005), evidence about the relationships of both challenge and hindrance stressors to three critical performance outcomes in frontline service jobs is scanty. In fact, there are mixed findings about the direct effects of these stressors on performance outcomes (e.g., Geng et al., 2014; Hon et al., 2013). Work engagement is a more proximal construct to performance-related consequences (Karatepe, 2012; Karatepe, 2013b; Menguc et al., 2013) and is considered a mediator in the relationship between challenge and hindrance stressors and the aforementioned performance outcomes.

This study uses quitting intentions as a critical outcome because turnover is still a problem among CCEs in the hotel industry. Assessing the factors that influence quitting intentions among CCEs is significant and relevant (Babakus et al., 2016; Karatepe, 2015a). Work engagement is also considered a mediator between challenge and hindrance stressors and quitting intentions.

(23)

hotel industry are faced with a number of challenge and hindrance stressors and work in an environment where modern or contemporary human resource practices are not prevalent (cf. Karatepe & Agbaim, 2012; Karatepe & Magaji, 2008). Under these circumstances, management should hire and retain employees who can handle different types of stressors, are engaged in their work, and display positive outcomes (cf. Karatep & Olugbade, 2009). In short, the results of this investigation are likely to yield important implications about the management of CCEs in the hotel industry.

1.4 Proposed Methodology of the Study

1.4.1 Sample

This study deployed judgmental sampling. As stated by Churchill (1995, p. 582), “the sample elements are selected because it is believed that they are representative of the population of interest”. Consistent with similar studies, this study used four criteria to specify the sample. First, this study considered the international five - and four-star chain hotels. This is due to the fact that management of the international chain hotels is expected to have appropriate complaint handling processes, encourage employees for creativity or innovativeness, and use effective human resources strategies to control employee turnover rate (cf. Karatepe & Karadas, 2015). Second, full-time employees were included in the study because part-time CCEs are outsiders and do not appear to be familiar with human resource practices of the organization (Karatepe & Magaji, 2008). In addition, they do not stay long in the workplace.

(24)

present study gathered data from local employees in Nigeria. This is because of the fact that countries in the sub-Saharan African region are still underrepresented in the hospitality management literature (cf. Karatepe, 2015b; Karatepe & Agbaim, 2012).

Using the abovementioned criteria, this study collected data from a judgmental sample of full-time CCEs in the international four- and five-star hotels in Nigeria. These CCEs were employed as front desk agents, guest relations representatives, food servers, beverage servers, door attendants, bell attendants, and reservations agents.

1.4.2 Procedure

Information taken from the National Institute of Hospitality and Tourism in Abuja at the time of the present study revealed that there were various international chain hotels where five were in the five-star category and 19 were in the four-star category. Management of 20 hotels was contacted via a letter. This letter contained the purpose of the study and permission for collecting data from CCEs. Permission from 11 hotels was obtained. That is, two five - and nine four-star hotels agreed to participate in the study. Since the researcher was not allowed to distribute the questionnaires to CCEs, this process was carried out by the representatives of each hotel. However, this is prone to selection bias. The researcher used one remedy to minimize such a threat. That is, the researcher requested the representatives to distribute the questionnaires to employees in different customer-contact positions (e.g., Karatepe & Karadas, 2015; Karatepe & Aleshinloye, 2009).

(25)

gathering self-report data leads to common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). According to Podsakoff et al. (2012), using a time lag and collecting data from multiple sources are among the potential remedies that minimize common method bias in an empirical study. Therefore, the researcher gathered data from CCEs two weeks apart in three waves and their immediate supervisors. This data collection is in line with the works of Karatepe and Karadas (2015) and Karatepe and Choubtarash (2014).

In addition, the researcher used several response-enhancing techniques before and during data collection (Anseel, Lievens, Schollaert, & Choragwicka, 2010; Karatepe & Karadas, 2015). For example, each questionnaire had a cover page that contained information about anonymity and confidentiality and stated that there were no wrong or rights answers to the items (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Management of each hotel provided support and coordination for this study. Participation in the study was voluntary. The researcher utilized envelopes to receive the questionnaires and matched the questionnaires through identification codes (Karatepe & Karadas, 2015).

The Time 1 questionnaire contained the challenge and hindrance stressors items and items about CCEs’ profile. The Time 2 questionnaire included the work engagement items. The Time 3 questionnaire contained the quitting intentions items and the supervisor questionnaire consisted of the service recovery performance, creative performance, and job performance items. The researcher was able to obtain 287 questionnaires.

1.4.3 Measures

(26)

subject to four different pilot studies before the main data collection process. The Time 1 questionnaire was tested with ten CCEs. This was repeated for the Time 2 and Time 3 questionnaires. The supervisor questionnaire was also tested with ten supervisors. The results suggested no need for making amendments about the understandability of the items in the aforesaid questionnaires.

The study constructs are ‘challenge stressors’, ‘hindrance stressors’, ‘work engagement’, ‘service recovery performance’, ‘creative performance’, ‘job performance’, and ‘quitting intentions’. Challenge stressors were measured with six items, while hindrance stressors were measured with five items. All items came from Cavanaugh et al. (2000). Response options ranged from 5 (produces a great

deal of stress) to 1 (produces no stress).

The shortened version of the Utrecht work engagement scale was used. Specifically, nine items came from Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006). Response options ranged from 6 (always) to 0 (never). Service recovery performance was operationalized with five items and these items were taken from Boshoff and Allen’s (2000) study. Job performance was also measured with five items and these items were adapted from Babin and Boles’s (1998) study. Three items were utilized to measure quitting intentions. These three items were taken from Singh et al.’s (1996) study. Response options for the items in service recovery performance, job performance, and quitting intentions ranged from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly

disagree). Lastly, six items were adapted from Wang and Netemeyer (2004) to

(27)

In addition to the study constructs, gender and organizational tenure were used as control variables to check whether they acted as confounding variables. Gender was measured as a binary variable (0 = male and 1 = female). Organizational tenure was measured in four categories (1 = under 1 year, 2 = 1-5 years, 3 = 6-10 years, and 4 = 11-15 years).

1.4.4 Strategy of Data Analysis

Two steps were conducted to test the measurement and structural models. First, the measurement model was assessed in terms of quality of the psychometric properties (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Specifically, convergent and discriminant validity as well as internal consistency reliability were assessed. These were reported based on the results of confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency reliability was also tested through coefficient alpha (Nunnally, 1978). Second, the structural model was assessed with structural equation modeling. Before this, the hypothesized model was tested with several alternative models based on the minimum discrepancy (CMIN) difference test. The mediating effects were tested based on bias-corrected bootstrapping method (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010).

(28)

Summary statistics and correlations of observed variables were also reported in this study. Broadly speaking, means, standard deviations, and correlations of gender, organizational tenure, challenge stressors, hindrance stressors, work engagement, service recovery performance, creative performance, job performance, and quitting intentions were reported. Respondents’ profile was reported through frequencies.

1.5 Outline of the Dissertation

This dissertation consists seven chapters. The first chapter which is called ‘introduction’ consists of information regarding research philosophy, theoretical rationale as well as purpose and contribution of the study. This chapter also explains the proposed methodology of the study.

(29)

Chapter 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents detailed information about the challenge and hindrance stressors. The antecedents of work engagement, attitudinal and behavioral outcomes are discussed. This chapter also discusses the JD-R model and transactional theory of stress as a theoretical framework of this study.

2.1 The JD-R Model

(30)

employees’ well-being and job outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001).

The JD-R model assumes that high job demands and limited job resources lead to employees’ burnout irrespective of occupation (Demerouti et al., 2001). In the absence of resources, individuals experience negative outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism and lack of organizational commitment and are unable to achieve their goals (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). It has been argued that job demands may not be negative but it may turn to stressors if meeting those demands requires sustained effort to the extent that it leads to depression and burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). A review of the extant literature reveals that while job demands (e.g., high work pressure, emotional demands, role ambiguity) in the workplace may lead to exhaustion and impaired health, job resources (e.g., social support, performance feedback, autonomy) are likely to activate a motivational process that increases individual’s work engagement and organizational commitment (Bakker & Demerouti. 2007).

(31)

‘decide’ that ‘enough is enough’ and hence switch from an active/strain mode to a passive coping mode that is characterized by disinvestment and disengagement” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 298).

Another assumption of the JD-R model is that job resources motivate individuals and increase work engagement, job performance, and lower cynicism (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). As a motivational construct, job resources enhance individuals’ growth, learning, development, competency and autonomy in the workplace. For instance, when employees receive adequate work social support and feedback, such support mechanisms lead to increased competency and encourage autonomy that will not only enhance organizational effectiveness but also employees’ well-being (Bakker & Demerouti. 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). As a motivational construct, a supportive work environment with adequate resources increases employees’ abilities and stimulates their willingness and dedication to the work task (Bakker & Demerouti. 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Specifically, it motivates employees to successfully complete the task and achieve overall objectives.

(32)

facilitate performance, and act as a protector against ill health” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 315).

2.2 The Transactional Theory of Stress

From the transactional perspective, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) introduced the theory of stress and argued that emotional life can be determined when individual characteristics and environmental attributes are considered simultaneously. They established that people’s emotional reaction to situations such as stress requires interplay between certain environmental attributes and individuals with some particular characteristics that will allow them to respond when exposed to those environmental attributes. As such, this theory centered on two basic approaches to well-being - cognitive appraisal and coping.

(33)

situations differently (Crawford et al., 2010; Lazarus, 1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Thus, cognitive appraisal approach involves people’s interpretation of demands encountered and employment of coping strategy to manage such demands (Lazarus & Folkman, 1990).

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (p. 141). Accordingly, both approaches are interrelated in that, individual interpretation of demands as either challenge or threatening requires different forms of coping. Specifically, once situations are appraised as stressors, coping approach is employed to manage such stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1990). For instance, stressors appraised as challenge will stimulate active form of coping such as problem-focused coping because of its associated potential for growth and achievement (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, 1990). Therefore, employees who appraise stressors as challenge at work are likely to implement problem-focused coping behavior by putting in extra efforts in order to successfully complete the task due to the perceived potential opportunities for personal goals and a sense of accomplishment.

(34)

2.3 Challenge Stressors

Several studies have examined challenge stressors and their effects on work-related outcomes. Cavanaugh et al. (2000) reported that challenge demands (e.g., job overload, time pressure, and high levels of responsibility) produce positive feelings and motivate individuals, even though such demands can be stressful, but individuals may perceive them as motivating force to learn and achieve goals. Challenge stressors were defined as “work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals” (Cavanaugh et al., 2000, p. 68). Specifically, challenge stressors are stressful and require energy, but also contain the challenging aspect of job that motivates individual workers to achieve and grow (Cavanaugh et al., 2000).

(35)

learn and an indirect positive effect on learning performance through motivation to learn.

Likewise, Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, and LePine (2004) defined challenge stressors as “work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals” (p. 166). To ascertain the relationships of challenge stressors with work-related outcomes, unlike Cavanaugh et al.’s (2000) study, Boswell et al. (2004) tested these relationships using non-executive employees at a western university. The results indicated that challenge stressors increased organizational loyalty and reduced work withdrawal, job search activity, and intention to quit among the employees. It was argued that although employees may experience challenge related stress, such experience may be perceived as an opportunity to learn and grow (Boswell et al., 2004). For example, if individuals see a stressed situation as potentially rewarding and changeable, they are likely to cope with the situation if they put extra effort.

(36)

Studies have also found unexpected results with regard to the relationships of challenge stressors to work outcomes. For instance, Sonnentag (2003) reported unexpected findings in the study conducted in Germany using 147 employees in the public service. The findings indicated that time pressure was not significantly related to work engagement. Consequently, the majority of empirical studies indicate that individuals tend to perceive challenge demands as opportunity to demonstrate their competency to achieve and grow. Accordingly, stress may not necessarily lead to undesirable outcomes, even though it might require an increased effort and energy. Therefore, stressors that are viewed by individuals to be challenging or potentially gainful should have positive effects on behavioral and attitudinal work-related outcomes.

2.4 Hindrance Stressors

(37)

not yield positive results. It was revealed in the study conducted with students who enrolled in an introductory management course that hindrance stressors discouraged them from learning and increased their exhaustion (LePine et al., 2004). In a meta-analytic study, LePine et al. (2005) explained that managers viewed hindrance demands (e.g., organizational politics, red tape, and role ambiguity) as a type of demand that thwarts personal goals and growth unnecessarily. However, the study results demonstrated that hindrance demands had a direct negative relation with performance and an indirect negative relation through motivation and strain.

In a similar meta-analytic study, Crawford et al. (2010) referred to hindrance demands (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, red tape, and administrative hassles) as a type of demand appraised as stressful with the potential to hinder personal learning, growth and goals. They tested the relationships between hindrance demands and work engagement using 64 samples. The study results revealed that hindrance demands had a negative association with work engagement. Supporting this notion, Boswell et al. (2004) argued that some stressful aspect of jobs can be disruptive. For instance, individuals who perceive stressful aspect of jobs as hindrance are likely to be detracted from learning and goal accomplishment as a result of anger. Their results established a negative relationship between hindrance stressors and loyalty, and significant positive relationships between hindrance stressors and job search and intention to quit. Accordingly, evidence from above indicates that hindrance stressors are associated with undesirable attitudinal and behavioral work-related outcome.

(38)

(39)

Table 1: Selected Research on the Challenge ̶ Hindrance Stressor Framework

Authors Definitions of stressors Samples Measures Findings Limitations Future

suggestion

Cavanaugh et al. (2000)

Defined challenge related self-reported stress as “self-reported work stress associated with challenging job demands” (p. 66).

Defined hindrance-related self-reported stress as “stress associated with job demands or work circumstances that involve excessive or undesirable constraints that interfere with or hinder an individual's ability to achieve valued goals (demands that produce distress)” (p. 67).

1,886 high-level managers in the United States

The following six items were developed by the authors as challenge stressors scale: 1. The number of projects or assignments I have.

2. The amount of time I spend at work. 3. The volume of work that must be accomplished in the allotted time. 4. Time pressure I experience. 5. The amount of responsibility I have. 6. The scope of responsibility my position entails.

The following five items were developed by the authors as hindrance stressors scale: 1. The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions.

2. The inability to clearly understand what is expected of me on the job.

3. The amount of red tape that I need to go through to get my job done.

4. The lack of job security I have. 5. The degree to which my career seems “stalled.”

Challenge-related self-reported stress had a positive relationship with job satisfaction, a negative relationship with job search and no significant relationship with voluntary turnover.

Hindrance-related self-reported stress had a negative relationship with job satisfaction, positive relationships with job search and voluntary turnover.

Low response rate (19%) may lead to sample bias

With the use of executive managers, the findings may not be generalized to the samples.

The dimensionality of the self-reported work stress construct needs further empirical investigation. The relationship between challenge and hindrance-related self-reported stress and the feelings associated with the experienced stress worth investigating to ascertain the causal linkage. Boswell et al. (2004)

Challenge-related stress was defined as “work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals’’ (Cavanaugh et al., 2000, p. 12).

Hindrance-related stress was defined as ‘‘work-related demands or circumstances that tend to constrain or interfere with an individual’s work achievement, and which do not tend to be associated with potential gains for the individual’’ (Cavanaugh et al.,

461 university employees

The six-item challenge stressor scale developed by Cavanaugh et al. (2000) was used.

The five-item hindrance stressor scale developed by Cavanaugh et al. (2000) was used.

Challenge stress was significantly and positively related to organizational loyalty, and negatively related to work withdrawal, job search, and intention to quit.

Hindrance stress was significantly and negatively related to organizational loyalty, and positively related to job search and intention to quit. However, the association with work withdrawal

The potential bias effects of respondents’ negative affect were not controlled.

The use of cross-sectional research may have affected the reported stress levels expressed and its effect on employees’ work outcomes. The use of challenging-

(40)

2000, p. 12). was not significant. hindering scale items developed by Cavanaugh et al. (2000) may have limited findings related to some specific job demands.

LePine et al. (2004)

Defined challenge stress as “promoting mastery, personal growth or future gains” (p. 884).

Defined hindrance stress as “hindering personal growth or future gains” (p. 884).

871 students enrolled in an introductory management course at a large southeastern university

The following five items were developed by the authors as challenge stress scale: 1. The number of projects/assignments in your classes.

2. The amount of time spent working on projects/assignments for your classes. 3. The difficulty of the work required in your classes.

4. The volume of coursework that must be completed in your classes.

5. The time pressures experienced for completing work required in your classes.

The following five items were developed by the authors as hindrance stress scale: 1. The amount of time spent on “busy work” for your classes.

2. The degree to which favoritism rather than performance affects final grades in your classes.

3. The inability to clearly understand what is expected of you in your classes. 4. The amount of hassles you need to go through to get projects/assignments done. 5. The degree to which your learning progression seems stalled.

Challenge stress was significantly and positively related to

exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance.

Hindrance stress was significantly and positively related to exhaustion and negatively related to

motivation to learn and learning performance.

The use of undifferentiated measure of stress may have potential implications on the study causality.

Integration of stress and motivation constructs will shed light on the substantial overlap between the theories of stress and theories of motivation.

The study also suggests further investigation of the impact of challenge-hindrance stressors on transfer of the learning, job context and learner health.

Factors that influence how individuals categorize subjective stress into hindrances and challenges need further investigation.

LePine et al. (2005)

A “factor included demands such as high workload, time pressure, job scope, and high responsibility” was “labeled challenge stressors because it included stressful demands viewed by managers as obstacles to be overcome in order to learn and

82 manuscripts and articles reporting data from 101 samples.

The challenge stressors measure was categorized as:

1. Job/role demands 2. Pressure, 3. Time urgency 4. Workload.

The measures categorized as challenge stressors were significantly and positively related to strains, motivation, and performance.

The use of primary research may have the potential implication on the challenge – hindrance measures and the differing

(41)

A “factor included demands such as organizational politics, red tape, role ambiguity, and concerns about job security” was “labeled "hindrance stressors because it included stressful demands viewed by managers as unnecessarily thwarting personal growth and goal attainment” (p. 765).

The hindrance stressors measure was categorized as

1. Constraints 2. Hassles

3. Resource inadequacy 4. Role ambiguity

5. Role and interpersonal conflict, 6. Role dissensus

7. Role interference

8. Role clarity (reverse-coded) 9. Role overload

10. Supervisor-related stress 11. Organizational politics

The measures categorized as hindrance stressors were significantly and positively related to strains, but had negative relationships to motivation and performance

Cross-sectional data may have potential implication on the study causality.

Crawford et al. (2010)

Challenge stressor “tend to be appraised as stressful demands that have the potential to promote mastery, personal growth, or future gains” (p. 836).

Hindrance stressors “tend to be appraised as stressful demands that have the potential to thwart personal growth, learning, and goal attainment” (p. 836). 55 manuscripts and articles reporting data from 64 samples

The challenge demands measure included 1. The level of attention required by job/role demands

2. Job complexity 3. Job responsibility 4. Pressure to complete tasks 5. Time urgency

6. Quantitative and subjective workload

The hindrance demands measure included 1. Situational constraints 2. Hassles 3. Organizational politics 4. Resource inadequacies 5. Role ambiguity 6. Role conflict 7. Role overload.

Challenge demands were significantly and positively related to burnout and engagement

Hindrance demands were significantly and positive related with burnout but negatively related with engagement

The data used may have limited the underlying mechanisms linking job resources and demands to engagement and burnout.

How demands are appraised as challenges or hindrance, as well as the effect of these appraisals on the cognitions, emotions, and coping strategies translate to self-perceptions of engagement should be investigated.

The measures used in the study may have a potential implication on the findings.

Tadić et al. (2015) Challenge demands “present conditions that require effort and energy, but efficient dealing with them can result in growth, learning, and goal attainment” (p. 3).

158 primary school teachers in Croatia

16-item scale by Rodell and Judge (2009) adapted for the diary study was used to measure challenge and hindrance demands.

Challenge demands significantly increased daily positive affect and work engagement.

The degree of the participants’ involvement in the study and their awareness on work-related experiences may have potential

(42)

Hindrance demands “present work tasks and conditions that require effort and energy, but do not have the growth potential” (p. 3).

Hindrance demands significantly reduced daily positive affect and work engagement.

implications on their responses.

(43)

2.5 Work Engagement

As a motivational construct, work engagement has received considerable attention from both practitioners and researchers. Kahn (1990) conceptualized engagement as “the harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles” (p. 694). The concept has been denoted as positive psychology that reflects positive aspects of employees’ work-related well-being. It has been argued that engaged employees are highly motivated individuals who come to work with a positive mindset, energetic, and willingly applying high level of energy to their work in order to accomplish goals (Leiter & Bakker, 2010).

(44)

(Leiter & Bakker, 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Therefore, they often experience joy, enthusiasm and inspire others at work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Studies on the consequences of work engagement have demonstrated its positive relationship with work related outcomes. Specifically, Bakker et al. (2007) found that job resources (e.g., job control, supervisor support, climate, innovativeness, information, and appreciation) had significant positive relationships with the three dimensions of work engagement. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007a) demonstrated that personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism) predicted work engagement. In a study conducted in Taiwan, Yeh (2013) reported a significant relationship between tourism involvement and work engagement. The results also showed that work engagement and job satisfaction were positively related. Therefore, engaged employees are highly motivated people who possess both personal and job resources that help cope successfully and deal with the demands of their job.

2.6 Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes

Service recovery performance, creative performance, job performance, and quitting intentions are considered as the potential consequences in this study. Though there are other consequences such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, these are included due to their importance in frontline service jobs and lack of empirical research in the challenge-hindrance stressors framework.

2.6.1 Service Recovery Performance

(45)

happiness after a service failure (Boshoff & Allen, 2000). Due to service failures or product defects, service recovery performance provides an avenue for firms to correct bad customer impressions in order to reposition themselves as a competent organization. Studies have demonstrated that service providers cannot entirely eliminate mistakes, but a single service failure can have a profound negative effect on the evaluation of service quality make customers search for alternative service provider (Kelly & Davis, 1994). Thus, a successful service recovery performance will not only eliminate such intentions and restore unhappy customers to the state of satisfaction but also lead to customer loyalty, improved satisfaction, positive word of mouth, and increased revenue (Ashilla, Rod, & Carruthers, 2008; Boshoff & Allen, 2000; Liao, 2007). Given the fact that service failure (e.g., unavailability of service personnel with appropriate skills, mistake of service, extremely slow service) can have serious negative effects on customers (e.g., negative word of mouth, loss of customers, decline in firm’s overall image and revenue), a successful service recovery performance may play a significant role in determining overall customer satisfaction (Spreng, Harrell, & Mackoy, 1995). For example, effective service recovery maintains firm’s relationship with customers and strengthens the firm’s image such as perceived value and quality (Boshoff, 1997).

(46)

improvement in customer satisfaction and time delay was negatively related to the level of improvement in customer satisfaction following service recovery. Despite occasional service failure, empirical studies have suggested that service recovery strategies should be included in the comprehensive service quality program to ensure overall customer satisfaction (Boshoff, 1997, 1999).

(47)

In contrast, Karatepe, Yorganci, and Haktanir (2009) found that emotional exhaustion was significantly and negatively related to service recovery performance among hotel CCEs in Northern Cyprus. Likewise, Choi, Kim, Lee, and Lee (2014) found emotional exhaustion to be significantly and negatively related to service recovery performance among frontline service employees in Korea. In an empirical study conducted in Turkey using restaurant employees, Guchait, Pasamehmetoglu, and Dawsonaa (2014) reported a significant positive relationship between perceived supervisor support and co-worker support for error management and service recovery performance. Therefore, perceptions of individual employees’ abilities and actions can have a significant influence on their service recovery performance.

2.6.2 Creative Performance

Studies have identified creativity as one of the keys to competitive advantage for organizational innovations and survival in today’s world market (Kim, Hon, & Lee, 2010; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Wong & Pang, 2003). Creative performance is the generation of new ideas while performing work-related tasks. It is a product or an idea that satisfies originality and useful to an organization (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Although creativity is the first phase in the innovation process, it is an individual novel idea generated at the individual level, while innovation is the implementation of those ideas at the organization level (Hon, 2012; Oldham & Cummings, 1996).

(48)

ideas, evaluate and reformulate such ideas to be new, relevant and useful. A study has found intrinsic motivation to be an important predictor of creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Shalley, Gilson, and Blum (2009) demonstrated that creative personality, intrinsic motivation, and growth need strength were significantly and positively related to self-reported creative performance. In addition, the interaction between growth need strength and a supportive work context fostered creative performance. Therefore, creativity should be viewed as a behavior resulting from a collection of personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and social environments (Wang & Netemeyer, 2004). In fact, contextual variables were suggested to be more effective predictors of creative performance than personality traits (Zhou, 1998). Wang and Netemeyer (2004) developed and validated seven scale items to measure salesperson’s creative performance. The study posited that adaptability, work effort, trait competitiveness, learning efforts, and perceived customer demandingness will foster salesperson creative performance.

(49)

to different experiences and increases employees’ confidence to develop new ways of performing in their workplace. For this reason, organizations that value employees’ knowledge, skills and behaviors through a reward system enhance peoples’ creativity and boost organizational effectiveness and long-term success (Hon, 2012; Hon & Rensvold, 2006). Hon (2012) demonstrated that reward systems based on personal knowledge, skills, and experience increases employee’s creativity in China. Thus, employees who perceive that their skills and knowledge are valued, strengthened, and rewarded appropriately are likely to continue learning to improve such skills and consequently exhibit creative performance.

2.6.3 Job Performance

(50)

In-role or task performance refers to the formal duties required by employees to exhibit in order to achieve organizational goals. On the other hand, extra-role performance refers to personal initiatives or discretionary behaviors on the part of employees in promoting effective functioning and achieving goals at workplace (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010). However, both dimensions clearly described the overall job performance and are important for overall effectiveness and success of organization. Furthermore, to gain more insight into the construct of job performance, several studies have used distinct measures and evaluations such as overall performance measures (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; Knight et al., 2007), in-role performance measures (Janssen & Yperen, 2004), and extra-role performance measures (Podsakoff et al., 1997).

(51)

to put in place management system that enhances employees’ job performance. Specifically, employees who have access to available mechanism that may contribute to their improvement will be motivated to perform.

2.6.4 Quitting Intentions

McNall, Masuda, and Nicklin (2010) defined quitting intentions as a “conscious and deliberate willingness to leave the organization” (p. 65). Specifically, quitting intention is simply expressed as making plan to change the organization or search for a new job. It is the strongest precursor to quitting which has been a major problem for organizations partly due to costs associated with hiring and training of replacement of lost valuable human resources (George & Jones, 1996).

(52)

The relationship between job characteristics and quitting intentions has also been examined. Spector and Jex (1991) examined the relationship between job characteristics and quitting intentions using data from multiple sources and reported that incumbent-reported autonomy, significance, feedback, and scope were significantly correlated with intent to quit. De Cuyper, Mauno, Kinnunen, and Mäkikangas (2011) demonstrated significant negative relationships between job resources (i.e., job control and social support from the supervisor and from colleagues) and quitting intentions in their longitudinal study. Work social support and autonomy in the workplace motivate employees to stay with the organization because they may feel reluctant to give away such resources.

(53)

Chapter 3

3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

This chapter presents the conceptual model and the hypothesized relationships in this study. This chapter also includes the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between stressors (challenge and hindrance) and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (i.e., service recovery performance, creative performance, job performance, and quitting intentions).

3.1 Conceptual Model

(54)

evaluation of stressful situation, whereas hindrance stressors trigger negative outcomes or significantly undermine performance (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Crawford et al., 2010).

Most of the studies on the challenge-hindrance stressor framework were based on the data from educational sector from developed countries (Boswell et al., 2004; Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Tadić et al., 2015), while evidence from the hotel industry is scanty (Karatepe et al., 2014). To gain more understanding of the relationship between job characteristics and employees’ well-being in the hotel industry, this study develops and tests a model that empirically examines the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on CCEs’ job outcomes through work engagement.

3.2 Hypotheses

3.2.1 Challenge Stressors, Hindrance Stressors, and Work Engagement

(55)

demands (e.g., work overload) had a positive relationship with dedication and vigor (Hallberg, Johanson, & Schaufeli, 2007; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). Such challenge demands are perceived as a motivating force that contributes to goal achievement. LePine et al. (2004) found challenge stressors to be positively related to performance, job satisfaction and motivation. In the hotel industry, CCEs frequently interact intensively with customers and deal with different requests and complaints (Karatepe et al., 2014; Karatepe & Kilic, 2007). Under these circumstances, CCEs who perceive this as an opportunity to learn will be willing to invest much energy and efforts in meeting these challenges, since such challenges might help to devise new skills that will enhance personal growth and development. For example, Crawford et al.’s (2010) meta-analytic study found a positive association between challenge stressors and work engagement. Similarly, Karatepe et al. (2014) found that challenge stressors (e.g., work overload and job responsibility) were positively related to work engagement among CCEs in Northern Cyprus. With this evidence, challenge stressors are expected to be positively related to work engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Challenge stressors are positively related to work engagement

(56)

relationship with motivation. Crawford et al. (2010) also revealed that hindrance demands were negatively related to work engagement in their meta-analytic study. Similarly, Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) reported that job demands (e.g., emotional dissonance) had a significant negative relationship with engagement among Dutch employees. Specifically, hotel CCEs who feel that if they dedicate much of their efforts and energy in job demands that will hinder their development and achievement at workplace; they will be reluctant to engage themselves in such job demands. This evidence suggests that hindrance stressors would relate negatively to work engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Hindrance stressors are negatively related to work engagement 3.2.2 Work Engagement, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Outcomes

(57)

positive state of mind and high levels of energy in turn, motivate CCEs to satisfactorily resolve service failure, especially in the hotel industry, where they are often involved in intensive interactions with customers.

Empirical studies have shown that work engagement contributes positively to organizational efficiencies, profitability, customer satisfaction, and loyalty (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005). For example, Yeh’s (2013) study of hotel CCEs in Taiwan demonstrated that work engagement increased job satisfaction. Karatepe’s (2013) study of Romanian hotel CCEs and their managers demonstrated that work engagement had significant positive effects on job performance and extra-role customer service. Other studies have also demonstrated that engaged employees are physically, cognitively, and emotionally involved in their work, and as such, are able to perform better at work (Khan, 1990). For these reasons, it is expected that engaged CCEs who are energetic, happy and highly engrossed in their work are more likely to resolve service failure to the customers’ satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3(a): Work engagement is positively related to service recovery performance.

(58)

(Hon, Chan, & Lu, 2013; Wong & Pang, 2003). As a motivational concept, work engagement is likely to trigger CCEs’ ability to generate new ideas that are crucial to effective quality service and organizational productivity. Because CCEs are important resources representing organizations, providing quality delivery process are in positions to either contribute to or damage the organizational image (Suan & Nasurdin, 2014). In general, engaged CCEs are more inclined to provide noble ideas and numerous alternative solutions to identified problems because of their energetic, dedicated, engrossed and positive attitudes towards work.

Studies have reported significant positive relationships between work engagement and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Karatepe, 2013; Saks, 2006). Similarly, Hakanen, Perhoniemi, and Toppinen-Tanner (2008) demonstrated that work engagement enhanced personal initiative among Finnish dentists. Likewise, Zhang and Bartol (2010) suggest that intrinsic motivation plays an essential role in what individuals will do and what they can do. As such, it is expected that engaged CCEs, in a positive state of mind, are more likely to try new approaches, spend more energy and efforts to identify problems and generate several alternative solutions and ideas that are useful to their work-related activities and overall organizational effectiveness. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3(b): Work engagement is positively related to creative performance.

(59)

However, different factors such as individual personalities and work environment are the key determinants of employees’ job performance outcome (Hon et al., 2013; Wong & Pang, 2003). Consistent with this notion, empirical studies found that learning goal orientation significantly and positively increased in-role performance and innovative work behavior among Ireland participants (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011). In contrast, Janssen, Lam, and Huang (2010) demonstrated that emotional exhaustion reduced overall performance. Specifically, CCEs who are engaged in their work role are dedicated, absorbed and highly energetic, and this has a great influence on their work-related activities (Rich et al., 2010).

Several empirical studies have established a significant positive relationship between work engagement and job performance. According to Bakker, Tims, and Derks’s (2012) study of employees from different organizations in the Netherlands, demonstrated that work engagement significantly enhanced in-role performance. Likewise, Halbesleben and Wheeler’s (2008) study conducted using samples of employees, their supervisors, and coworkers from a wide variety of industries and occupations showed that work engagement significantly influenced job performance. Furthermore, Christian, Garza, and Slaughter (2011) reported that work engagement was significantly and positively related to job performance. Moreover, Bakker and Bal’s (2010) study among Dutch teachers demonstrated that work engagement increased job performance. This is also consistent with Halbesleben’s (2010) meta-analytic study. His results demonstrated that work engagement was significantly correlated with organizational job performance.

(60)

such as happiness, passion, high levels of energy, and effective connection to work, often experienced by engaged employees (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3(c): Work engagement is positively related to job performance.

High quitting rate is one of the major problems facing hotel industry especially, among CCEs, because it is difficult to find replacement to occupy the vacant positions as well as the costs involved during the process of hiring and selecting new employees (Babakus et al., 2008; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Poddar & Madupalli, 2012; Schyns, Torka, & Gössling, 2007). As the precursor of actual quitting, quitting intentions simply involve making plans to change the workplace or search for a new job. A review of the literature suggests that quitting intentions arise mostly, when employees are not satisfied with their jobs (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010). This notion is supported by Poddar and Madupalli’s (2012) findings. Furthermore, other factors including individual characteristics and work environment conditions have been established to trigger quitting intentions. According to Babakus et al. (2008), emotional exhaustion and job demands increased CCEs’ quitting intentions.

(61)

display lower intentions to quit their job. Thus, work engagement is expected to lower intentions to quit an organization. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3(d): Work engagement is negatively related to quitting intentions. 3.2.3 The Mediating Role of Work Engagement

(62)

Time I Time II Time III

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

H2 H1

Control variables

Age and Organizational tenure

Linking Challenge and Hindrance Stressors to Employees’ Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes through Work Engagement